London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202204724)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204724

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs required at the property including cracks in the walls and ceilings, asbestos removal works required at the property and reported snagging issues in relation to flooring, skirting boards, the bath panel, gaps around the doorstep and skirting, and kitchen units.
2. The associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat.
The landlord raised an emergency repair on 2 March 2021. The works order detailed that the resident believed there could be structural damage in the property due to cracks in the ceiling. A plasterer was requested.
The landlord’s internal records of 4 March 2021 detail that a plasterer attended the emergency repair but that an asbestos report was needed.
The landlord undertook an asbestos survey on 8 April 2021. This identified the presence of asbestos in the floor tiles and advised that the material should be managed as asbestos and inspected. It advised that when any planned work is undertaken any asbestos materials that could be disturbed should be removed prior to works.
The resident phoned the landlord several times between 23 April to 7 May 2021 to request the results of the survey and a timescale of when the cracks would be filled in.
The resident phoned the landlord on 10 May 2021 to log a repair to have the flooring removed so she could put in carpet. The landlord raised a works order for asbestos testing and removal on the same day.
The resident phoned the landlord on 15 July 2021. The resident requested that the work to plaster the cracks be put on hold as she was in the process of being decanted (temporarily moved) and the plasterer would not have any space to do the work. The landlord confirmed that the job would be paused until she moved back into her property.
The resident phoned the landlord on 25 August 2021 for an update regarding the decant. The resident advised that the removal company had removed her belongings to place them into storage.
The landlord’s internal emails of 3 September 2021 state that the removal company had attended to take out the resident’s 3 remaining items in the property. However, the removal company found that the asbestos contractor had started work at the property earlier than it had stated. The removal company was not allowed access as a result and the asbestos contractor refused to bring the resident’s belongings out so that they could be put into storage. The landlord confirmed in a further email that it had spoken to the contractor and had been advised that the resident’s belongings had been “sheeted up” to protect against contamination and that works had been completed that day. An air monitoring contractor had completed an air monitoring test on 3 September 2021 which reported that the air quality was satisfactory.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 September 2021 to advise that the works to remove asbestos tiles had been completed.
The landlord raised a works order to its flooring contractor on 13 September 2021 to measure for new vinyl flooring, however this was marked as cancelled.
The resident phoned the landlord on 14 September 2021 as she was due to move back into her property that day and was concerned that the air conditioning unit and washing machine had not been reconnected. The landlord informed her that the reconnection had taken place, however, the resident advised that she had spoken to the removal company who stated that the washing machine, cooker and air conditioning unit were still in storage.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 September 2021 to advise that asbestos tiles were not removed as expected from the kitchen and bathroom. She stated that the contractor had left old flooring in the bath and floor and that the wash hand basin contained residue of the old flooring. She felt that the bathroom was unusable and provided a photograph showing the dumped flooring. She advised that the bottom of the skirting board was not sealed where the asbestos tiles were removed and that in one cupboard that grey paint had only been painted on half of the floor. She advised that she was waiting for the landlord to provide emergency accommodation.
The landlord’s surveyor had inspected the property on 16 September 2021 and confirmed the resident’s report of the asbestos tiles not being removed from the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord stated that the resident had to be moved back into temporary accommodation but that the delivery company had moved her belongings back into the property.
The resident’s email to the landlord of 16 September 2021 requested that items in the fridge, freezer along with dry food and possessions be removed before the contractor did any further work in the kitchen to avoid contamination. In a further email of 17 September 2021, she requested that her possessions be cleaned and put back into storage so that the contractor could complete the work required. She reported further snagging issues advising that the contractor had not applied screed to the edge of the skirting board across the floors.
The landlord organised a joint meeting which took place at the property with the resident on 21 September 2021 to discuss and arrange for any outstanding issues to be addressed.
The landlord’s asbestos contractor then issued a completion certificate on 21 September 2021 to advise of satisfactory completion of works.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 22 September 2021. She referred to the emails she sent on 15 and 17 September 2021 and wished these to be considered as part of her complaint. She advised that she was not happy that.
1. The kitchen had not been cleaned.
2. The floor to the left and right of the fridge had not been painted.
3. Her possessions that had been moved from the store cupboard were dumped in the bathroom and the bath was not cleaned.
4. No paint had been applied to the area where the floor tiles were removed by the front door and the door seal had not been replaced.
5. There was a hole and cracked floor in the living room.
6. She had to use her annual leave to provide access to the property for the landlord’s contractors and now had no annual leave left.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 September 2021 as she wished to add a further complaint issue regarding 3 kitchen cupboards that she reported had been damaged by the contractor and sent some photographs of this issue.
The landlord raised a works order to its flooring contractor on 27 October 2021 to measure for vinyl flooring and carpeting to the hallway. The landlord’s repair records detail that its flooring contractor had agreed to a Saturday appointment with the resident to lay flooring on 13 November 2021. However, the operative that was due to attend was sick and unable to attend. The contractor advised that it could rearrange the appointment during the week for an afternoon or an evening.
The landlord logged a stage one complaint following a phone call with the resident on 15 November 2021. The notes detail that the resident’s complaint was discussed at some length including the issues raised concerning the asbestos contractor. The resident advised of her dissatisfaction with the flooring contractor who was unable to attend on Saturday 13 November 2021 due to illness. She wished for all remaining work to be completed on a weekend due to her working hours. The landlord advised that it would set up a meeting to discuss the issues.
The landlord’s flooring contractor advised the landlord on 19 November 2021 that it had tried to book an after-work evening appointment with the resident without success. It had also sent a text message to the resident to advise her to call to rearrange.
The landlord phoned the resident on 19 November 2021 to discuss her complaint. The resident confirmed that the floor tiles had been removed, however the concrete floor still had adhesive on it. The resident felt that the landlord should not have been signed off the work before it was completed.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 19 November 2021. It upheld the resident’s complaint and was to organise a meeting and consider using a different contractor to complete the outstanding works and to lay flooring. It provided an email for its liability insurance team if the resident wished to make a claim for any damaged personal belongings.
The landlord phoned the resident on 23 November 2021. During the call the resident stated that she was going to send in some further complaint issues along with a request for the reimbursement of hotel costs. She stated that at a meeting with the landlord and contractor it had agreed that repairs be completed to the door, kitchen base units, bath panel and that this had not been carried out. The ceiling still needed to be repaired.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 November 2021 providing details of further complaint issues. In addition to the complaint issues raised as part of her stage one complaint, the resident detailed:
1. That the landlord’s surveyor had not carried out an effective post-inspection of the works informing the rehousing team that the repair works had been completed.
2. The reason why her fridge freezer, cooker, washing machine had not been collected by the removal company for storage as she felt had been agreed.
3. That the landlord’s surveyor had allowed “unauthorised access” to its asbestos contractor on 16 September 2021 after the meeting that had taken place earlier that day. She alleged that the asbestos contractor had damaged her possessions as they failed to seal off the kitchen and had put tools and dust pans on top of them. She stated that a bag containing asbestos material had been left open and she supplied a number of photographs.
4. She referred to the works order to plaster cracks in the ceiling that had been paused and had been rescheduled to 18 January 2022 and asked if this could be rebooked for a Saturday.
5. She requested a refund of hotel accommodation that she had arranged between 22 and 26 September 2021 as she felt “overwhelmed, anxious, disorientated”.
The landlord phoned the resident on 1 December 2021 to advise that its surveyor would need to set up a meeting to discuss the asbestos contractor and remaining works required. The resident agreed for the landlord’s sub-contractor to complete the flooring. She stated that she would wait for the asbestos contractor to complete the other works first. The landlord advised the resident that it had requested that the work be completed on a Saturday.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 December 2021. She asked for a timescale for a response. She requested a record of the discussion with the surveyor and an email of the points discussed during the phone call from the landlord on 1 December 2021. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day listing the snagging works and 2 outstanding works orders for the kitchen and plastering the cracks in the ceiling. It stated that it had requested the work to be undertaken on a Saturday. The landlord emailed the resident on 8 December 2021 to advise that it would add the complaint issues raised by the resident in her email of 29 November 2021.
The landlord raised a works order on 16 January 2022 to measure for vinyl flooring and carpeting to the hallway. The repair records detail “no action” for this.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 1 February 2022 and asked for the resident’s complaint to be escalated to the next stage. The MP reported that the landlord had booked an appointment on 18 January 2022 for snagging works but that it had agreed to do the work on a weekend.
The landlord’s internal email of 2 February 2022 stated that the resident had refused access to the flooring contractor “even after we tried to accommodate her request for a Saturday appointment”. The landlord stated that it had not heard from the resident after 8 December 2021.
The landlord responded to the MP enquiry advising that the resident’s last communication was 8 December 2021 and that she had not requested an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 at this time. It had contacted the resident on 16 January 2022 to ask her to contact the flooring contractor to arrange an appointment but there had been no response. It had reopened the resident’s complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 March 2022 to advise of a delay in responding at stage 2 of its complaints process. It apologised for the delay. It gave no timeframe for a response.
The landlord raised a works order on 6 May 2022 to repair the cracks in the walls and ceiling.
The resident emailed her landlord and her MP on 13 May 2022. She stated that the landlord had not complied with its complaints policy. She requested that works would be put on holding until the landlord had resolved the outstanding issues.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 29 June 2022 as the landlord had not issued a stage 2 response. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2022 to request it to issue its stage 2 response by 2 August 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 August 2022. It advised that the additional issues raised by the resident after its stage one response was issued had been considered in its response. It detailed:
1. That the work to remove asbestos floor tiles undertaken in September 2021 did not present a risk to the resident due to the low level of asbestos within the tiles. However, its contractor should have taken the items from the bathroom. It advised an open bag that the resident had referred to did not contain asbestos material. It advised that grey paint was the industry standard used to encapsulate the bitumen.
2. It would be unable to refund the resident’s hotel accommodation as this had been booked without its prior agreement and was not part of the decant arrangement that had been in place until 22 September 2021. It stated that there was no written decant agreement and information was given verbally. It was therefore unable to prove conversations that may have been held.
3. It apologised that the flooring contractor did not attend as agreed on a Saturday due to illness and that her resident was not informed on the day. It understood that the resident did not wish this contractor to reattend. Its contractor had offered afternoon and evening appointments which the resident refused. This would mean that the appointment would need to be arranged between Monday to Friday. It advised that gaps under the skirting and doorstep seal would be addressed by the flooring contractor once works commence.
4. It advised that it had 2 outstanding works orders for cracks in the walls, for which there had been no access on 10 and 13 May 2022 and on 18 July 2022. A works order to repair a kitchen unit had been cancelled when the resident requested all appointments to be rescheduled for a Saturday. It had discussed this with its surveyor as a new inspection could be required before works are arranged.
5. It recognised that there had been failings by its asbestos contractor and the carpet contractor. It advised that communication could have been better throughout the works. It awarded £535 compensation comprising £100 for the delay in responding at stage one, £50 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2 and £385 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred her case to the Ombudsman to investigate on 28 October 2022. As a remedy the resident wished the landlord to refund rent from 13 September 2022 to 26 September 2022. She wished for the landlord to complete the repairs to the flooring following the removal of the asbestos tiles, along with repairs to the cracks in the ceiling. She requested a new flooring contractor to visit due to the missed appointment of 13 November 2021. She requested a refund of a hotel bill. She requested that work be completed on a Saturday due to her using up her annual leave.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, for the purpose of this investigation the timescale considered is 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint to her landlord of 22 September 2021.
The resident has made a request to the Ombudsman for the landlord to permanently rehouse her. The resident would need to make this request to her landlord. As this did not form part of the complaint at stage one or at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this matter, she could then consider making a further formal complaint to her landlord. She may be able to bring this further complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (member landlord’s) complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. It will respond at stage one within 10 working days. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord may extend the deadline for a response at both stages if more time is needed. It will then write within a further 10 working days. The policy has since been reviewed in September 2022. The updated policy details that it will respond at stage one within 10 working days “of logging a complaint”.
The landlord’s repairs policy details that it will undertake routine repairs “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”. It will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will attend emergency out of hours repairs within 4 hours to make safe. It states that floor coverings are a tenant’s responsibility other than for kitchen and bathrooms where flooring was provided by the landlord. As no timescale is provided for routine repairs, a timeframe of 28 days is considered reasonable for the purpose of this investigation, in line with industry best practice.
The landlord’s asbestos policy details surveys that may be carried out by consultants to identify asbestos containing materials prior to works being carried out. It operates a register and requires contractors and employees to review this before undertaking works. It sets out its legal responsibilities under relevant legislation such as the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, Defective Premises Act 1972, Housing Act 2004 and Environmental Protection Act 1990.
According to the rehousing policy for emergency, temporary and permanent moves, the landlord will pay the costs such as rent and service charges for the temporary accommodation, along with relevant expenses and compensation promptly. A resident is responsible for paying the rent on their permanent property.

The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property including cracks in the walls and ceilings, asbestos removal works required at the property and reported snagging issues in relation to flooring, skirting boards, the bath panel, gaps around the doorstep and skirting, and kitchen units.

The need for an asbestos survey was brought to the landlord’s attention following its plasterer’s report of 4 March 2021. There was a small delay in the landlord raising a works order for the asbestos survey on 29 March 2021. The Ombudsman has seen no records to indicate the reason for the delay and it can be seen that the resident chased up the landlord on a number of occasions. However, the asbestos survey was carried out within a reasonable timeframe on 8 April 2021. This indicated the presence of asbestos in the floor tiles.
The resident reported that the landlord’s contractor was due to call on 16 July 2021 which was 3 months after the asbestos survey. Whilst this was delayed, the landlord would need to instruct its contractor and make arrangements for the resident to be decanted whilst the work was being undertaken. However, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord’s communication during this period was insufficient. It was the resident who was in more regular contact with the landlord for updates. The resident’s phone call of 15 July 2021 indicated that arrangements were being made for the decant, and if this was the case then it would suggest that the landlord’s record keeping was insufficiently robust. This conclusion was confirmed in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 1 August 2021 when it advised that there was no written decant agreement and that arrangements had been made verbally. The landlord needed to follow up verbal arrangements in writing and it failed to do so.
The landlord should review its record keeping practice to ensure that it is aware of the condition of its properties, agreements made and can provide accurate information to its residents. It should carry out a self-assessment of its record keeping practice using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).
It was appropriate for the landlord to make arrangements to decant the resident whilst the work was undertaken in line with its rehousing policy above and to move her possessions into storage whilst works were undertaken. The landlord responded reasonably when the resident was dissatisfied with the original temporary accommodation provided from 3 August 2021. It then provided further temporary accommodation from 9 September 2021 until the resident was due to move back on 14 September 2021. The landlord extended the decant until 22 September 2021 which was appropriate as the contractor had failed to complete the works and left debris and flooring waste in the bathroom.
The landlord inspected the work on 16 September 2021 and verified the resident’s report that the contractor had failed to remove the floor tiles as required in the kitchen and bathroom. However, the records do not indicate that the landlord had arranged for an earlier inspection to take place prior to the resident moving back on 14 September 2021. This would have been an appropriate step for the landlord to take, given the landlord’s reports of concern regarding the contractor in its emails of 3 September 2021. The landlord contacted its contractor at this point who reassured the landlord that the resident’s belongings had been covered to prevent contamination. However, the landlord needed to ensure that it was satisfied that the work had been completed in line with its specification. This was therefore a failing.
The failure to post-inspect the property meant that the resident experienced inconvenience and distress on entering the property on 14 September 2021 to find that the bathroom was unusable due to the abandoned carpet and debris that had been dumped on the floor and in the bath. She found that work was incomplete and that there had been a failure to remove herremaining belongings. This led to the extension to the resident’s decant to 22 September 2021 causing her further inconvenience and distress. The resident was also understandably concerned about the possible contamination of her belongings from asbestos. The resident was concerned that she may have been exposed to asbestos. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the potential impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident’s health. This is because this would be a legal matter, normally considered through a personal injury claim. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on the matter if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions. However, the Ombudsman can consider the resident’s general distress and worry caused by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This has been considered when assessing the compensation payable.
The resident then raised a stage one complaint on 22 September 2021 referring to a number of outstanding snagging works. She also provided a further email on 29 November 2021 following the landlord’s stage one response. She listed a significant number of items which she wished the landlord to resolve. The landlord initially raised a works order for the kitchen unit on 29 September 2021 and a works order for its flooring contractor a month later on 27 October 2021. However, there was delay in progressing and arranging an appointment for snagging works which was made for 18 January 2022 which was a failing. It needed to ensure that the snagging works were prioritised given the inconvenience and time and trouble in the resident pursuing the issues.
There was delay in the landlord actioning the resident’s report concerning the outstanding works order to plaster cracks in the ceiling when she mentioned it again on 23 November 2021. An appointment had been made for 18 January 2022 which meant that the work would be undertaken outside of a reasonable timescale. However, the resident requested that this be rebooked for a Saturday. The resident’s request for weekend appointments is considered below in this report, but the landlord’s subsequent appointment was not made until 11 May 2022. This was 6 months later, and it is not clear why there was such a significant delay which was outside of the landlord’s repair policy guidelines to complete routine repairs “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”. The landlord was not proactive following completion of the asbestos removal in rebooking this appointment given that this was an outstanding works order, originally reported in March 2021. There was therefore a failing. The unreasonable delays caused the resident unnecessary distress, time, trouble and inconvenience in trying to get the landlord to complete the work.
Due to these issues, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs affecting the resident’s property. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. The guidance suggests compensation from £100 to £600 is appropriate for instances of maladministration by the landlord. Maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to comply with its own policies and procedures, unreasonable delays in dealing with a matter, and behaving unfairly, unreasonably or incompetently. In this instance, an amount of £450 compensation is appropriate, being £300 compensation for the landlord’s overall handling of the asbestos removal works, its delay in addressing the snagging issues and its delay in addressing the cracks in the walls and ceilings, and £150 in respect of the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident from having to pursue the matter due to the landlord’s errors.

The resident’s request for weekend appointments to complete the works.

The resident is required under the terms of her tenancy agreement to provide access for the landlord to inspect and/or carry out work in the property. It is acknowledged that the work undertaken required a decant away from the property and that the resident reported she had used up her annual leave to attend repair appointments. However, the resident was obliged to allow access to the property to allow work to be carried out and the landlord would not be expected to compensate her for the loss of her annual leave to do this.
Although it would often be more convenient for residents, landlords are not obliged to offer weekend or evening appointments and not offering appointments at these times would not be a failure by the landlord. The landlord put the resident’s request for weekend appointments to its maintenance team which was a reasonable step to take so it could check if it could meet her request. It was also reasonable for the landlord to find a flooring contractor who could install the flooring on a Saturday. The failure of the operative in attending the appointment was outside of the landlord’s control. It would have been expected that the contractor would have contacted the resident on the day, but it failed to do so. There is evidence that the landlord contacted the resident who had agreed for a further appointment to be made for the original flooring contractor to reattend. This would have been on a weekend; however, the resident declined this appointment. The records indicate that the resident was also offered the option of an evening appointment. This demonstrated that the landlord was doing what it could do to accommodate the resident’s request and was acting reasonably.
The landlord did indicate to the resident that it would arrange a weekend appointment for the other works. This would have increased the resident’s expectation of weekend appointments, which are generally unusual. Whilst it was positive that the landlord was considering this, there needed to be internal checks with the maintenance team before raising the resident’s expectations in this way. This was not a significant failing, however the landlord needed to manage the resident’s expectations better.
Whilst the landlord made a request for weekend appointments in relation to the outstanding repairs to the drawer and ceiling, the Ombudsman has not seen records that suggest that this specific request was agreed. The landlord subsequently sent through appointments that the resident was not happy with. The resident then asked the landlord to put the repairs on hold whilst her complaint was ongoing. This meant that the landlord was then unable to progress the work at this point. As the landlord had made efforts to accommodate the resident’s request which, according to the tenancy agreement, it was not obliged to do, there was no maladministration in relation to this matter.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation

The resident’s initial stage one complaint was sent to the landlord on 22 September 2021. This referred to the emails of 15 and 17 September 2021 to be included within the complaint.
The landlord raised a stage one complaint following the resident’s phone call of 15 November 2021. During the phone call the original complaint was discussed along with the failed flooring contractor visit. Whilst it may have been reasonable for the landlord to raise the resident’s dissatisfaction with the flooring contractor as a separate complaint, this led to some confusion with the stage one response. The initial stage one response was sent to the resident on 19 November 2021 within the complaint policy timescales.
The landlordmaintained a reasonable level of communication with the resident following its original stage one response in November2021. It was evident that the landlord had made efforts to understand the resident’s complaint issues and her remaining areas of dissatisfaction which was appropriate. The landlord’s complaint handler kept in close contact with the resident in November and December2021. It agreed to consider the additional issues that the resident raised on 29 November 2021 as part of her complaint. It emailed the resident on 8 December 2021 to confirm this which was reasonable.
The landlord sent its subsequent stage one response on 16 January 2022 which only addressed the issue with the flooring contractor. This would have caused confusion to the resident as the matter had been discussed prior to the landlord issuing its earlier stage one response in November 2021. It was clear from the volume of communication from the resident that she was still dissatisfied and as such it would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the complaint at this point to stage 2 of its complaints process. However, there is no record that this happened until after the MP wrote to the landlord on 1 February 2022 enclosing the resident’s specific request to escalate the complaint to the next stage. This delay was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
There was evidence of further internal communication and record keeping issues when the case was picked up by a new complaint handler. The landlord’s internal records detail that it had set up email forwarding but that this did not occur until early February 2022. The new complaint handlermay have beenunfamiliar with the conversations and emails up to this point between the landlord and resident. The landlord clearly needed to keep accurate records so that the correct course action, ie escalation to stage 2 could happen and this was a failure. It also led to further frustration to the resident as she had already raised complaint issues on 29 November 2021 that the landlord had said it would consider at part of the resident’s complaint. She also had the inconvenience, along with the time and trouble taken in chasing the landlord for its response to these issues that had already been raised.
The landlord did not log the complaint at stage 2 until February 2022, which was 3 months’ later.There were further delays in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 2. The landlord initially sent an email to advise that its response was delayed on 3 March 2022, which was a reasonable step to take. However, it would have been appropriate and in line with its complaints policy for the landlord to agree a new deadline with the resident for its stage 2 response. It failed to do this which was not appropriate. The resident had to contact the Ombudsman as no response had been issued causing her additional inconvenience, and time and trouble in pursuing a complaint response. Even when the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 7 May 2022, the landlord’s stage 2 response was further delayed and was not issued until 1 August 2022. This was a further 4 months after the email advising of the delay in its stage 2 response, and nearly 8 months after the resident expressed her further dissatisfaction in November 2021. This was therefore an unreasonable delay and not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord raised a new stage one complaint on 6 May 2022 in relation to one of the outstanding issues regarding the cracks in the walls and ceiling and it issued a response to this on the same day. However, it clearly needed to review its records identifying that this was one of the issues identified by the resident in her earlier complaint. There was therefore no need to raise a new complaint and the landlord needed to deal with this issue as part of its stage 2 response. It needed to advise the resident appropriately and it failed to do so.
The landlord needs to follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, (the Code). The Code is a statutory requirement. It is published on our website and sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The landlord needs to pay particular attention to the complaint stages. The landlord’s updated complaint policy from September 2022 has added that it will respond at stage one within 10 working days from the complaint being logged. This is not in line with the Code. A response should be given within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. A revised Code is due to be published on 1 April 2024 and it is recommended that the landlord completes a self-assessment against the revised Code and uses this to refresh its complaints policy.
The landlord advised in its stage 2 response that it would not refund the rent as requested by the resident for the period 13 September 2021 to 26 September 2021. It would not pay for the resident’s hotel accommodation that she had booked after the end of the decant period on 22 September 2022. The landlord advised that this had not been agreed prior to the resident making the booking. The landlord’s rehousing policy above states that the landlord covers the cost of agreed temporary accommodation, however, the resident would need to cover the existing rent. The Ombudsman has seen no further evidence that any prior agreement was made to refund the rent or for this later hotel accommodation. As such, the landlord was entitled to make its decision in line with its rehousing policy. It did offer compensation of £535 at stage 2 which comprised £100 for the delay in responding at stage one, £50 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2 and £385 for distress and inconvenience. This was a reasonable amount of compensation, however, this does not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fully address the delay in responding at stage 2 and further compensation has been ordered in respect of this delay.
The Ombudsman’s special investigation (July 2023) into the landlord highlighted the landlord’s complaint handling and the fact that there was a disconnect between policy and practice. It highlighted unreasonable delays experienced by residents in trying to progress their complaint. It also referred to the landlord’s inadequate knowledge and information management. It is regrettable that these issues are evident in this case in respect of unreasonable delays in progressing the resident’s complaint and in respect of knowledge and information management.
There was maladministration due to the failings identified with the landlord’s record keeping, communication, along with the delays in its complaint handling. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as above, compensation of £585 is appropriate comprising £535 already offered and a further £50 in respect of the delays in providing its stage 2 response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property including cracks in the walls and ceilings, asbestos removal works required at the property and reported snagging issues in relation to flooring, skirting boards, the bath panel, gaps around the doorstep and skirting, and kitchen units.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings outlined in this report, for example the failure to properly post inspect the asbestos works and progress the snagging works and the repair to the ceiling, its failure to communicate effectively, and its complaint handling failures.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property including cracks in the walls and ceilings, asbestos removal works required at the property and reported snagging issues in relation to flooring, skirting boards, the bath panel, gaps around the doorstep and skirting, and kitchen units.
3. Pay the resident £585 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to arrange an inspection of the property, and to produce a schedule of works for the remaining snagging works, and for the repair to the cracks in the walls and ceilings. It should provide evidence of successful completion of the works within a further 4 weeks.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s governing body and residents’ panel outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website.
2. Its intention and a timescale to review its policy and procedures for contract management and operational oversight, including contractor performance for the maintenance of its properties, informed by its self-assessment.
3. Its intention and a timescale to review the application of its repairs policy, its understanding of instances where it is not being followed and steps it will take to ensure performance can be measured and reported.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord refreshes it self-assessment of its complaints policy utilising the Ombudsman’s toolkit available on our website within 12 weeks of the revised Code being published on 1 April 2023. It should use the self-assessment to revise its complaints policy to ensure compliance with the new statutory Code.